To the flying public, I fully understand that it has to seem ridiculous that dirt and fossils could be mistaken for a bomb. If I didn’t know anything about how x-ray images looked or what TSA was looking for, I’d probably be on the “you guys actually thought that was a bomb?” bandwagon.

I’m going to try to make this as simple as I can, saying what I am able to say.

1) Images of items on the x-ray monitor often look nothing like they normally do to the naked eye.

2)Dirt and fossils as well as many other normal day to day items can resemble what our officers are trained to look for on the x-ray monitor.

3) Bags often contain electronics and wires that overlap these items making them look even more suspicious.

As a former TSO I can think of a couple of times where by chance, everyday normal harmless items were laid out in a bag in such a way to look exactly like a textbook improvised explosive device. (IED)

In this particular case, a Bomb Appraisal Officer (BAO) was summoned and they eventually determined there was no threat. When you think there might be an explosive in a bag, you don’t just whip it out of the x-ray tunnel and dive into it. There are procedures that must be followed for the well-being of everybody involved. Of course, once the bag was opened, it was obvious what the items were and that they did not pose a threat.

I hope this clears things up a little bit in regards to items being mistaken for IEDs.

Years ago, my then-wife was flying into Montreal to meet me. She is an artist, and had her drawing materials in a carry-on. When her bag went through the x-ray, the Canadian border folks suddenly appeared very serious and asked her to step aside... It turns out that the pencils in her bag looked like wires in the x-ray. Once they opened the bag and saw the art materials, the Canadians were very nice about it.

Of course, I think they were a bit on edge, because the guy in from of my ex-wife tried to get a switch blade on the airplane. "What's this?" "Oh, it's a tool". The inspector presses a button, and thwack! The blade flies out! Fortunately, no blood was spilled. (Imagine the penalty for that.) They hustled the guy off in a hurry.

I am a volunteer at PHX Sky Harbor Airport in the Navigator program. As such, I spend 4 hours a week at the airport helping passengers and greeters work their way through the place. This brings me in contact with TSA at times and while some of those contacts are better than others, I see a level of sarcasm posted on this blog that is seldom if ever justified.

First and foremost, you are dealing with an arm of the Federal government. And whether it's the TSA, SSA, FDA, SEC, whatever...that defines an interface citizens are very much unused to coping with. Add to it that "security" is TSA's middle name and that takes it to a whole 'nother level.

So Step One is: Get over it.

Step Two: Understand that their prevailing mentality is "Not on my watch." They will do anything & everything to avoid making a mistake or allowing an incident to occur.

And some of it makes no sense...like the time I saw a passenger hand carry a drink in a large styrofoam cup all the way through the TSA checkpoint. Somehow the TSA folks missed it, until another passenger pointed it out. A TSA TSO chased the guy (who was proceeding towards his gate, drinking from the cup) down the concourse and took the cup away.

Another time I needed a Spanish speaker for a passenger requiring help inside security. TSA supplied the interpreter even though it had nothing to do with TSA business.

Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.

“Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.”

================Protests are useless, funny it worked for Martin Luther King and the civil rights movements and not listening to protests was one of the driving forces behind the founding of this country. Read your American History books again and start looking for references about “no taxation without representation.

Even if TSA was disbanded tomorrow, you'd still have to go through almost all the same procedures and screening before getting on a plane. I wonder if they might even be more intrusive, since the Airlines and Airport Authorities would now be liable for any incidents that occurred.

@West: Hey anon, there was no yelling at the passenger! Mr Gelpack, the dirt made it's flight along with the passenger that was not yelled at.If this is indeed the case, the TSA did its job properly. The TSO saw something suspicious, took appropriate action, and cleared the passenger and the item once the true nature was determined.

@SteveArizona: First and foremost, you are dealing with an arm of the Federal government. And whether it's the TSA, SSA, FDA, SEC, whatever...that defines an interface citizens are very much unused to coping with. ..... So Step One is: Get over it.This would be appropriate advice if we had confidence that the government agency in question was doing its job competently, was following procedures that respected the rights of passengers and limited intrusions to their persons and effects to the minimum extent necessary, and was accountable for compliance with regulations known and accessible to the public. Under those circumstances, most of us would have little difficulty "coping" with this necessary "interface."

Unfortunately, the TSA meets none of those criteria. What we are "unused to coping with" is an agency that operates under secret rules and procedures, regularly punishes members of the public for violations they can't know about, and continues to tolerate "officers" who abuse and disrespect the public. That is not something we should just "get over."

Yes, the unfortuante reality is that we must "willingly consent" to "voluntarily abandoning" our rights if we want to fly today. But that does not mean that we should just quietly accept it and "get over it" when we're not at an airport.

Step Three: Protests are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.That's probably true on this blog, which seems to be a "designated protest area" where we're allowed to speak with the assurance that we'll be heard (or more often ignored) only by low-level PR staff who have neither the interest nor the authority to address any our concerns. But other venues may be more productive. I just hope you don't mean you want us to give up our right to petition the government for redress of grievances in exchange for the "protection" the TSA claims to provide.

I didn't realize my post would garner such comment but I'm glad it did.

Please understand that of all the considerations I listed in my steps, "Not on my watch." overwhelms everything else. There is no benefit of the doubt. There is a fear on the part of the TSO and the TSA in general that some slip-up or oversight will lead to a disaster traced back to a deficiency in a TSA person or group.

So yes, protests to the TSA are useless. The more you protest, the more suspicion you raise. And this includes Martin Luther King, Jr. if he were to go through a security checkpoint today.

The only cure to SteveArizona's accurately described "not on my watch" syndrome is to make the penalties for passenger civil rights violations extremely harsh.

E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired. Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired. Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.

And ensure that all TSOs fired under these circumstances lose all federal pension benefits and are barred from public-service jobs for life.

Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta.

I have nothing against screening all commercial airline passengers for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, using non invasive technologies like x-ray (on property, not people), metal detectors, and explosive-trace-detectors/portals, so long as the search is limited to the targeted items and not used to justify a fishing expedition for other items or for politically-incorrect opinions, employers, travel patterns, etc.

But TSA has gotten completely out of control on what I believe is more power trip than paranoia at this point. Even the bloggers here have effectively admitted that any TSO can declare any item to be prohibited on a whim, and the passenger has no recourse that will allow them to make their flight. Unlike law enforcement, which is restricted to acting on articulated probable cause or at least articulated reasonable suspicion, TSA gets away with things based on mere whim and never has to justify why they did what they did. As a result, they get away with ruining innocent passengers' days or even lives without a shred of accountability.

The TSA is, of course, paranoid. This is due to a perception that the USA is the only nation where terrorism is a threat. Which is complete and total nonsense, but there is very little we can do to convince them otherwise.

As to the professionalism issue, I firmly believe it is not the lack of training, but the lack of firing that causes it.

Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.

"E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired. Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired. Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.

And ensure that all TSOs fired under these circumstances lose all federal pension benefits and are barred from public-service jobs for life.

Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta."

....seriously? Ok, first off you can't blame TSA for missing things in bags. There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated. Secondly if I saw a TSO let the guy in front of me have his home made modified compact easy to hide power source for a bomb through the checkpoint without asking questions I would raise some complaints. Asking questions to people is a very simple way of figuring out if they are lieing to you and if they are lieing then they must be up to no good. And some ID's have political affiliation on them so its a way of verifiying that the ID is yours just like asking for any of the other information plainly printed on your ID for everyone to see. Oh and before you think screening grandma is a bad idea I want you to know, because I have seen it, that terrorists love straping grenades to grandmas wheelchair and rolling her into crowded areas why? because no one notices or pays attention to little old grandma. You people gotta remember that the hidden secret not heard about very often bad guys TSA is fighting are really REALLY sick individuals.

Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing.___________________________________

That is nice, I am glad you had that experience. I see that kind of behavior everyday at my airport. (CLE)

Anon, the problem with your theory that the "solution" is to arrest and charge everyone who does something you don't like with a crime is that it will simply cause the pendulum to swing the other way. People will default to a mentality that any decision can get them in trouble, arrested and fired so they simply do nothing. This risk avoidance mentality is what led to the failing of our intelligence apparatus prior to 9/11. If a person knows that a mistake or judgment call can get them arrested (and the notion that a private screening is sexual assault is laughable and disrespectful to real victims of sexual assault) they simply to default to letting anything and everything go. The amusing thing about so many of these criticisms is that it takes things out of proportion. For several years after 9/11 I was flying at least once a week, I never had an issue going through a check point, never had to abandon (or have "confiscated") any of my property and basically had no issues. I can somewhat understand the concerns of occasional flyers, but if you are a frequent flyer and haven't figured things out then I suspect more of the problem is with you than TSA.

Anonymous said... The TSA is, of course, paranoid. This is due to a perception that the USA is the only nation where terrorism is a threat. Which is complete and total nonsense, but there is very little we can do to convince them otherwise. As to the professionalism issue, I firmly believe it is not the lack of training, but the lack of firing that causes it. Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay. Maybe it's just a cultural thing.April 28, 2009 11:38 PM----------------------------

Anon,

I agree that if bad attitudes/performance can't be corrected through training/disciplinary measures, the officer should be terminated. If it’s not happening, that’s unfortunate. Many officers that do a great job have black eyes due to a few bad apples.

That's a nice story about your screening experience in Germany. I'm glad they helped you and treated you with respect.

I'm assuming you're sharing your story to show how nice they were compared to the TSA? Am I correct? If so, I can't tell you how many times I've seen our officers here at the TSA do the same exact thing.

I could go on and on with countless stories of courteous TSOs and professionalism. I knew an officer once who went out after their shift and bought some pizza with their own money for stranded passengers who's flights were cancelled due to weather. I've seen many officers on their lunches or breaks taking the time to show passengers the way to their gates or answer questions. Before I came to HQ, I observed an officer at CVG helping an international passenger make an international call. She took the time to listen to the woman and even talk to the operator for her. This is while she was on her lunch. It's common place for our officers to help folks along who need the extra help.

You know, the last time I traveled through Frankfurt, (I've been through that airport about 7 or 8 times) the security was rude to me. Do I think all German security officers behave this way? Of course not.

RE: ...seriously? Ok, first off you can't blame TSA for missing things in bags. There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated. Secondly if I saw a TSO let the guy in front of me have his home made modified compact easy to hide power source for a bomb through the checkpoint without asking questions I would raise some complaints. Asking questions to people is a very simple way of figuring out if they are lieing to you and if they are lieing then they must be up to no good. And some ID's have political affiliation on them so its a way of verifiying that the ID is yours just like asking for any of the other information plainly printed on your ID for everyone to see. Oh and before you think screening grandma is a bad idea I want you to know, because I have seen it, that terrorists love straping grenades to grandmas wheelchair and rolling her into crowded areas why? because no one notices or pays attention to little old grandma. You people gotta remember that the hidden secret not heard about very often bad guys TSA is fighting are really REALLY sick individuals.

"There are two completely different groups of airport baggage handlers who are not monitored handling your luggage after TSA, most TSA baggage screening is automated."

Exactly, and TSA has not taken steps to fix this known security problem. TSA is derelict in complying with the laws regulating the agency!

ID's have political party affiliation? Would you please tell us which ID's have this information.

The guy with the homemade battery, TSA did ask questions, they knew what it was, that it presented no danger yet confiscated the item anyhow. Then TSA put up a big announcement bragging about the confiscation until questions starting getting asked.

@Bob: I agree that if bad attitudes/performance can't be corrected through training/disciplinary measures, the officer should be terminated. If it’s not happening, that’s unfortunate. Many officers that do a great job have black eyes due to a few bad apples.It's not merely "unfortunate." It's inexcusable. And the fact that the "bad apples" aren't terminated but continue to give the TSA "black eyes" indicates that the TSA tolerates and condones such behavior. I would even suspect that the TSA leadership even encourages it as "effective security, based on their failure to stem it and on their practice of standing firmly behind "bad apples" when their conduct is egregious enough to require a CYA press release.

So Bob, I'm asking you the same question I ask any other TSA person who mentions the "bad apples" here: What are you doing about it? When you see the bad behavior, do you report it to your superiors? If not, is it because they or their superiors discourage doing so? You're admitting that there's a problem that is giving you a bad reputation and making your job more difficult.

All we can do about this problem is to complain to each other about it. We can write comments here that (as far as we can tell) by deliberate design never get anywhere near the officials at headquarters who could demand improvements. But you're inside the TSA, and should be able to do something. You have every incentive to do something, since it affects your own job. So what are you doing about it? What steps is the TSA taking to crack down on the "bad apples"? If the answer is "that's SSI," then why is it secret?

Showing us concrete evidence of measures to fix the "unfortunate" problem will do more to improve the reputation of the TSA than any amount of spin and puppy posts.

I could go on and on with countless stories of courteous TSOs and professionalism. I knew an officer once who went out after their shift and bought some pizza with their own money for stranded passengers who's flights were cancelled due to weather. I've seen many officers on their lunches or breaks taking the time to show passengers the way to their gates or answer questions. Before I came to HQ, I observed an officer at CVG helping an international passenger make an international call. She took the time to listen to the woman and even talk to the operator for her. This is while she was on her lunch. It's common place for our officers to help folks along who need the extra help.Bob,

The last time I checked, being a screener does not place you and your fellow screeners into a special category of Good Samaritans. At IAD last saturday, I helped a woman get her bag down from the overhead bin and, just temn minutes later, I helped a family of foreign travelers with an ATM machine. You know what? It's not about me. It's about common courtesy and doing the right thing. There were dozens of senseless acts of kindness going on all around me committed by all races, colors, creeds, genders, and ages.

It's really pathetic that you feel compelled to post a laundry list of screener accomplishment.

As a former employer, I can tell yu that much of what you want is not SSI, but PSI: Personal Sensitive Information. TSA cannot publicly announce that TSO X has been fired because of XYZ. That's defamation and actionable in court. As an ex-employer, I had/have to be careful about what information I give out about my former employees even now, although the business I owned was sold in 11/2001. Even if the employee was a "bad apple", if he/she comes to me for a refernce, it could come back against me, even if I was being honest.

TSA may have more leeway, being a public/government agency. I recall an incindent in St Paul where a few Sheriff Officers were found guilty of a charge, yet the Sheriff's office could not publicly comment on the officers even though it was public record (in the arrest) and in all the local news. Up to the conviction, the news had to use "allegedy" ever time they talked about the case. Even when these guys headed to prision, the Sherrif's office still would not/ could not comment publicly.

So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking. TSO-Joe

"Exactly, and TSA has not taken steps to fix this known security problem. TSA is derelict in complying with the laws regulating the agency!"

Sez you! I love how you constantly spin other answers to fit your view. It doesn’t matter what I said. It doesn’t matter what I even think I said. All that matters is what YOU think I said. You quote what I wrote but don’t read what I wrote. You give everything written the WORST possible spin imaginable, almost oppisite of TSA. even if they said what you want, you'd still disagree.

You know, the last time I traveled through Frankfurt, (I've been through that airport about 7 or 8 times) the security was rude to me. Do I think all German security officers behave this way? Of course not.They knew who you were and decided to give you a taste of your own medicine. Don't like it much, now do you?

Another Anonymous poster said... “The only cure to SteveArizona's accurately described "not on my watch" syndrome is to make the penalties for passenger civil rights violations extremely harsh.”To that I could agree, as long as the individual making the complaint actually knows what those rights are. Unfortunately in this venue that is most often untrue.

Another Anonymous poster continues…“E.g., strip search a passenger: offending TSO criminally charged with sexual assault and fired and bystander TSOs named publicly and fired.”Passengers are not strip searched. If there is a question that we cannot resolve while the passenger is dressed, then we just don’t allow that passenger into the sterile area.Now, as it happens, I have had several incidents where passengers have dropped their pants intentionally both in public and in the private screening room, without being asked. Some people just don’t have the phobia that most of us have about nudity in public. Should that TSO be fired, publicly humiliated, and denied their pensions?

Another Anonymous poster continues…“Confiscate/steal personal property that is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary and was not a threat to aviation (e.g., the homemade battery pack); TSO charged with abuse of authority, possibly charged with theft, and fired.”Does this include those items which on their own are not a weapon, explosive, or as is a threat to aviation? Baseball bats? Bullets? Loaded magazines? How about bottle’s of 50% hydrogen peroxide? None of these on their own are weapons, nothing a threat to aviation directly, but all are parts of things that could be extremely dangerous on an aircraft, should we allow them?Another Anonymous poster continues…“Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed, or the TSO asking political affiliation as part of an id verification): TSO named publicly, criminally charged with abuse of authority, and fired.”Who gets to choose which questions are inappropriate? Or are you going to make a complete list of questions that we cannot ask?

Another Anonymous poster continues…“Implementing a few penalties like these would really bring the workforce into line and make them think about law-abiding passengers' right to travel unimpeded by government instead of dwelling on paranoid delusions that every 2-year-old and granny with a water bottle is the next Mohammed Atta.”Wow, around the world 2 year olds and 90 year old grannies are use by terrorists to transport WMD materials. Are we to ignore that inconvenient fact for the sake of grannies that honestly seem to enjoy the attention?

Another Anonymous poster continues…“I have nothing against screening all commercial airline passengers for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, using non invasive technologies like x-ray (on property, not people), metal detectors, and explosive-trace-detectors/portals, so long as the search is limited to the targeted items and not used to justify a fishing expedition for other items or for politically-incorrect opinions, employers, travel patterns, etc.”

OK, so if we see kiddie porn we should leave it alone. I get you.

And finally Another Anonymous poster finishes with…“But TSA has gotten completely out of control on what I believe is more power trip than paranoia at this point. Even the bloggers here have effectively admitted that any TSO can declare any item to be prohibited on a whim, and the passenger has no recourse that will allow them to make their flight. Unlike law enforcement, which is restricted to acting on articulated probable cause or at least articulated reasonable suspicion, TSA gets away with things based on mere whim and never has to justify why they did what they did. As a result, they get away with ruining innocent passengers' days or even lives without a shred of accountability.”If I could get away with claiming cell phones are prohibited, believe me I would. Of all the things that get forgotten in pockets or on belts, that is number one. As for the search, I refer you back to Trollkillers post about and “administrative search” and leave you to ponder.

Bob thanks for clarifying things for the public. As a TSO, I often see items on the x-ray monitor that appear "suspicious" at first glance. There have been times when I've called for a supervisor for items that resembled completed ied's. Despite the testing that goes on at our checkpoints daily, we have to take these "suspicions" seriously until we know otherwise. As bob said, on the x-ray, dirt may appear to be consistent to an explosive material. When you factor in wires, etc, it appears even more so. We are often times looking at only a 2 dimensional image. This is why we have bomb appraisal officers, trained specifically in what to look for to determine if an image contains a threat or not. They are an extra set of eyes for us....in this case it turned out be fossils and dirt, in another case you never know what you may find. Thanks again Bob.

Contrary to popular belief, It is possible to be professional and courteous at the same time. Two of the nicest and and most professionally astute TSO-types I have ever dealt with work in the Frankfurt International Airport. Both women observed me limping toward their checkpoint on my cane, and instead of yelling slower and louder at me in a language that I don't understand, or singling me out as a potential terrorist for SSSSS screening, they gestured for me to wait. The cuter one, probably still in college, steered me to seat in front of the checkpoint while the not much older one found me a cane to use when going through the metal detector while mine was examined and x-rayed. No harsh words were exchanged, no threatening postures taken. Just two wonderful people making sure that this grey-haired old man was okay.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing.***********************************There are alot of reasons why TSA has rude employees, some of them I won't go into in this forum. But for the most part, I've noticed that the rude ones are usually rude to everyone, including fellow TSO's. Yes, some of them should be fired, others just have a gripe of some sort. What the public doesn't see is what often times causes someone to be rude...is this an excuse? NO! But it is a reality. I have had plenty of bad days at my airport...maybe my manager or supervisor yelled at me for something...right or wrong I don't like being yelled at. Maybe a passenger ticked me off...I don't like that either, but I have to deal with it. Whatever the reason, I repeat that there is NO REASON for rudeness. My motto: Be "professional and courteous to everyone" because karma is a B. A tip to my fellow TSO's if something is bugging you and need a short break to get it together, by all means, go get a drink of water, or take a trip to the rest room to calm down. Its not worth getting fired or disciplined for rudeness.

@TSO-Joe: So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking.I'm not seeking any flesh, nor suggesting that the TSA reveal details about specific disciplinary or termination actions. Rather, I'm asking about a general process for reporting and and taking action against TSOs who fail to meet the (supposed) professional standards of conduct in dealing with passengers. That can't possibly be PSI, but it's likely to be SSI because everything else about TSA operating procedure is SSI.

I suggest "declassifying" the process for holding TSOs accountable because the continued presence of "bad apples" and "bad screening experiences" indicates either that the TSA is choosing not to follow that process or (more likely) lacks any such process. That gets back to earlier comments about reporting "bad screening experiences." I suspect that very few people ever file such reports, mainly because they don't know how to do that or even that there is a way to do it. And those who know about it probably don't bother because they have no assurance that accomplishes anything, or that it won't put them on some sort of watch list.

As I and others have repeated far too often (though apparently not often enough to have any effect), the pervasive secrecy and complete lack of accountability are the root cause of why the public despise the TSA so much. Holding TSOs accountable for professional standards by publicizing the process for reporting "bad screening experiences" as well as the process for dispositioning those reports would go a long way toward improving the TSA's standing with the public.

That assumes, of course, that the TSA leadership actually wants to improve their agency's standing with the public. Sometimes I think they actually want the public to despise them because it equates with "effective security." I hope I'm wrong about that, but what I've seen suggests I could be right.

Chris, I think you miss the point Bob was making. He wasn't trying to point out that TSOs are the most super nice people in the world. He was simply pointing out that while people here constantly attack with "TSO so and so was mean to me" there is another side of the story. If all I did was read the posts from our herd of "anons" had never actually been to an airport and passed through security I would think I was about to marched into the gulag. Bob is simply pointing out that, like any other group of people, there are some really polite and considerate ones, some average ones and some who need some improvement with their manners.

@Anonymous (TSO), April 30, 2009 9:40 PM: My motto: Be "professional and courteous to everyone" because karma is a B. A tip to my fellow TSO's if something is bugging you and need a short break to get it together, by all means, go get a drink of water, or take a trip to the rest room to calm down. Its not worth getting fired or disciplined for rudeness.It's great that courtesy is part of your personal belief and work ethic. But I wonder whether that's also part of the TSA's requirements. Is your motto the TSA's motto as well? Does the TSA actually fire or discipline any TSO for rudeness?

Does the TSA define what "professional" means, or have some code of conduct for which TSOs are accountable? Is courtesy and respect for passengers part of the performance appraisal criteria for TSOs? Do TSOs have any real incentive to treat passengers with courtesy and respect? Do TSOs face any consequences for rudeness and bullying? If a passenger reports a "bad screening experience," would that ever result in effective corrective action?

These are important questions, to which I hope Bob or someone from the TSA will provide answers other than "that's SSI." If the questions are ignored, I can only assume that it's because the answers are all "no."

"If I could get away with claiming cell phones are prohibited, believe me I would. Of all the things that get forgotten in pockets or on belts, that is number one."

Ah, the incisive security knowledge TSO "It is illegal to travel with $10K in cash" Ron is known for! Cell phones occasionally provide a minimal degree of inconvenience for you, therefore they should be declared a security threat.

Wow, around the world 2 year olds and 90 year old grannies are use by terrorists to transport WMD materials. Are we to ignore that inconvenient fact for the sake of grannies that honestly seem to enjoy the attention?..................Since you know this to be true please provide some references to these acts.

"Holding TSOs accountable for professional standards by publicizing the process for reporting "bad screening experiences" as well as the process for dispositioning those reports would go a long way toward improving the TSA's standing with the public."

I think I get what you are asking. I think you are asking two seperate but linked questions:

First, what is the process for complaining about a rude TSO or bad expereince? The passenger, has to tell someone about it. I know TSA has comment cards and this site: https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10 ,which is an on-line complaint form. Even a letter later on can alert TSA to a problem. The big drawback with all these is it falls upon the passenger to do it. When I worked for Sears, studies were shown that most people who had a bad experience just leave. At a checkpoint, I'd imagine that a passenger just wants to get to their flight. But the passenger can talk to a supervisor or manager. I have seen this done and the supervisor will talk to the TSO about the issue. And if it reoccurs, the STSO has a process to address the TSO behavior.

Which leads to the second question: what is the actaul process that the TSA uses to disciple an employee? Unless the blog team nixes it, I can post the process here as I do not believe it is SSI. What do you say, Bob? Give me the OK and I'll look it up.

RB, I can't speak for carrying WMD material but Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar a grandmother of 40 according to some news sources blew herself up at an Israeli checkpoint. Thats just one example.

There have been cases for years of people utilizing children to smuggle drugs (although the baby corpse thing is an urban myth), because they understand the special difficulties involved in screening children. The prisons in the US, UK and Canada have all cited problems with people using their own children to smuggle drugs into prisons and they have a greater lattitude with their searched than TSA does, not to mention more time. And please spare me the "TSA isn't in the business of looking for drugs" I understand that but the same fundamental tactics apply regardless of what is being smuggled. The notion that terrorists won't adopt a tried and true tactic like that is laughable.

Ultimately though as soon as you put a certain group of people "off limits" from a screening standpoint all you have done is encourge people to utilize that avenue. TSA says "show your AARP card and skip screening" the bad guys will find some people in that demographic to take advantage of the loop hole.

" ... TSA may have more leeway, being a public/government agency. I recall an incindent in St Paul where a few Sheriff Officers were found guilty of a charge, yet the Sheriff's office could not publicly comment on the officers even though it was public record (in the arrest) and in all the local news. ... Even when these guys headed to prision, the Sherrif's office still would not/could not comment publicly.

So although it would be helpful to all the TSA critics to know that the "rougue TSO" has been terminated or disciplined, it may not be possible for TSA to give you the pound of flesh you are seeking. TSO-Joe "

All of the actions by that local Sheriff's office were policy decisions.

The actions of TSA are policy decisions. Policy decisions can be changed -- and should be, in this context. The vastest majority of law enforcement offices around this country fall over themselves to get on the media to trumpet the status, by name, of any LEO who is even suspected of any sort of egregious conduct. The LEO might be "reassigned to desk duty" pending investigation, or might be "suspended with pay" pending investigation, or fired or exonerated after investigation. Every step of the way, the LEO is identified by name (usually accompanied by a photo) and his/her status is made clearly known.

Why? Because the strength of the "thin blue line" depends upon maintaining public trust. The INSTANT the public loses trust in one LEO every remaining LEO loses some of his/her effectiveness. For the "thin blue line" to remain intact, it is IMPERATIVE that departments demonstrate that the uniform will never, ever shield a maverick.

TSA, on the other hand, shields and protects maverick TSO's (and all the rest of the acronyms). Worse still, TSA has institutionalized schoolyard bully behavior. According to TSO's on this very blog (including you, Joe, IIRC), DYWTFT is still a standard part of the lexicon. Bob's post about the St Louis TSO who "used inappropriate language" simply sent the message (at least to the public, and probably to some segment of TSO's) that a TSO can pull a stunt like that and get away clean. Now maybe, just maybe, he didn't get away clean. Maybe he was disciplined. Maybe he was retrained. But you can't prove it by me, and so I don't believe anything at all happened to him beyond maybe the mildest slap on the wrist.

Truly lousy response by a TSA rep: "The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action."

Better: "The actions of the TSA employee were inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. The TSO involved faces disciplinary action, and TSA apologizes to the passenger."

Best: "The actions, tone and language used by TSO Joe Bfstplk were unacceptable. Because TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards and because TSO Bfstplk clearly acted outside those standards, TSO Bfstplk has been suspended for one day without pay. Upon his return, he will be required to undergo remedial training and will be reassigned to other duties. TSA has extended its deepest apologies to the passenger."

This isn't about extracting a pound of flesh, Joe. This is about building and maintaining public trust.

Sorry, I am not savvy enough yet to know how to condense a link like a lot of the posters here can, but I have found several links about children being used in terror attacks. This search took me all of 2 minutes and if I really wanted to get down to researching, I could generate many more detailing the various schools of thought. This is a compelling reason for screening children the same as adults (albeit with more focus and sensitivity as children are usually more likely to be unsettled by their surroundings). I hope this gives you an idea as to what the basis for the screen all the same thought pattern comes from. It is reprehensible to use a child in this manner, but the vast majority of Americans do not understand just how prevalent this practice is in other countries (and to some extent even here). History is rife with the stories about children suffering at the hands of those appointed as their guardians, these are but the first few I found with a simple search. There is a similiar problem the elderly that can not fend for themselves or that suffer from any number of diseases like alzheimers, or dementia. See this link:

http://www.dnis.org/index-2.php?issue_id=15&volume_id=3

And this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019826.php

These are terrible things that many organizations and persons with ill intent will use to further their own twisted designs. When we stop screening because someone is in a wheelchair or in a baby carrier, we lose our much of our effectiveness because the "bad" people can learn and observe too. I agree that there should be more attention to the person coming through whether it is because they are a scared little child wondering what all this noise and motion is, or a person that has a disability of any kind that needs some assistance. I hope that this will address your previous post RB.

@Irish: This isn't about extracting a pound of flesh, Joe. This is about building and maintaining public trust.

Very interesting comment. What it can only suggest (based on a long history of observed TSA behavior) is that the TSA really doesn't care about maintaining public trust because they don't believe they need it.They have special Wartime powers to fight the Enemy, which exempt them from the laws and standards that apply to everyone else. And the traveling public are the Enemy, assumed to be guilty until screening proves us innocent. They have no need for us to trust them, as long as have the "respect" instilled by fear.

So they continue to endorse the use of "Do you want to fly today?" as a valuable strategy for winning the small battles at checkpoints. They use Wartime secrecy as justification for arbitrary and capricious actions. And they continue to tolerate "unprofessional" TSOs who bully and abuse, since that's always an appropriate way to treat an Enemy. For all their sweet talk about "respect" and "quality," what it comes down to is that we're all presumed to be terrorists and criminals. There is thus no need to rely on the public trust for effectiveness. Indeed, the TSA leadership may even regard the disdain the public (i.e., the Enemy) has for their agency as proof of their effectiveness.

Viewing the TSA that way would explain much of what we see on this blog and at airport checkpoints.

These are terrible things that many organizations and persons with ill intent will use to further their own twisted designs. When we stop screening because someone is in a wheelchair or in a baby carrier, we lose our much of our effectiveness because the "bad" people can learn and observe too. I agree that there should be more attention to the person coming through whether it is because they are a scared little child wondering what all this noise and motion is, or a person that has a disability of any kind that needs some assistance. I hope that this will address your previous post RB.

WestEOS Blog Team

May 2, 2009 5:28 PM

.......................No one is asking TSA to stop screening.

How about screening everyone!

If they enter the secure area they should be screened.

Oh, has anyone ever attempted to take control of an aircraft using grandma or a baby as a weapon?

What leads you to believe that the TSA's "stringent measures" actually keep passengers safe? The TSA apparently wants us to believe that if screening is inconvenient and intrusive, it must be effective. But every undercover test and audit I've seen reported suggests that screening is not very effective. Don't confuse security theater with actual security. They're not the same!

Oh, has anyone ever attempted to take control of an aircraft using grandma or a baby as a weapon?"

I have already posted somewhere on the page that I do not mind being screened going to work. The organizationmade the decision to not screen the TSO's going to work, I abide by that. If we are going to screen everyone, we would have to limit access to the baggage areas, the checkpoints, the airside areas and any access point to the SIDA/sterile areas. At some airports, it would take years to adjust that and set it up for screening. Now, imagine the backlash from the LEOs, the pilots and crew, the airline fuel teams, and the list goes on. I agree that we could screen all people coming into the sterile area, but it would be a huge undertaking to change the way things work as of now. I have no problem with being screened, but the undertaking of that would be epic!

If we are going to screen everyone, we would have to limit access to the baggage areas, the checkpoints, the airside areas and any access point to the SIDA/sterile areas. ..............................Perhaps I am confused.

Don't these areas already have controlled access? Are you saying they are wide open and anyone can enter?

Another point of proof that TSA is not in control of airport access security!

It's only a matter of time before the TSA concept of security fails. The flying public will be the ones paying the bill when it comes.

"The organization made the decision to not screen the TSO's going to work, I abide by that. If we are going to screen everyone, we would have to limit access to the baggage areas, the checkpoints, the airside areas and any access point to the SIDA/sterile areas. At some airports, it would take years to adjust that and set it up for screening. Now, imagine the backlash from the LEOs, the pilots and crew, the airline fuel teams, and the list goes on. I agree that we could screen all people coming into the sterile area, but it would be a huge undertaking to change the way things work as of now."

So, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular? (As opposed to, say, screening for sinister shampoo bottles, foreboding footwear, and dire deodorant?)

West, do I really have to elaborate on what's wrong with this picture, or do you already get it? And, given this explanation for the gaping holes in security, are you honestly surprised by the distain and derision with which the public views the TSA?

RB sez - "Don't these areas already have controlled access? Are you saying they are wide open and anyone can enter?

Another point of proof that TSA is not in control of airport access security!"

No, that is not what I said at all, and it is not another point of proof that we are not in control. Each of the areas that I am referring to has a access control and is a secured area. The difference is that people that are on the cleared rosters (flight crew, certain airport employees, maintenance crews, baggage handlers, etc) and have access to those areas are not screened 100% of the time. TSOs are not screened 100% of the time at the checkpoint or these access areas. They are not wide open, they are controlled access areas - nice try though RB!

Irish sez - "So, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular?"

Nice try there Irish, but like I explained to RB earlier, these are controlled access areas. There are those that enter these areas without being screened (flight crews, etc see my previous post). If you want all people that access the AOA, SIDA areas and other areas, it would be monumental because not only would the people have to be on the access rosters for the airport, new control points and screening areas would have to be constructed for the areas they enter at. I am not saying screening 100% of the people entering the AOA SIDA areas is impossible, just that at this time it would not be feasible. I have a question for you Irish, do you want ALL people that enter the SIDA areas screened? This would mean that even the LEO's designated to patrol in the AOA and SIDA areas would have to take their gun belt and all their equipment off and process it through the xray. Would you make exceptions for an emergency situation? If so the medical crews responding to a situation would have to stop and process all of their equipment through before they are able to get to someone in need. It would also mean that maintenance workers going to fix a gas leak or some other broken item would have to clear their tools (and if held to the same standards, would always have to use tools under 7 inches in length to perform the repair/maintenance) before going through to fix whatever was needing repair. The owners/board members of the airport would have to clear before going out to review or inspect or even look around their own airport. Aircraft repair crew would not be able to work on a delayed aircraft before coming through... Do you see how senseless that sounds? It is exactly what you are proposing by the way you are phrasing things. There are people that have access to the AOA, SIDA areas, and other secured areas of the airport that do not process through screening, but have to go through access control measures before gaining entry. If you want them all screened, it would be a huge task and cost bazillions of dollars to outfit the new screening areas.

Thanks, West, for confirming that it all really is for show on the passenger side.

TSA has the resources to do such things. Instead, it wastes those researches on things like gate searches, strip search machines, new uniforms and tin badges, and so forth.

A lot of people pass thru your checkpoints with much more thorough and invasive background checks than the airport workers do, yet are subject to the same screening.

History in the federal government shows that the greatest threats come from the inside. The greatest damage to US security comes from trusted people that work for the FBI, DIA, NSA, and so forth. You're much more likely to have an issue with someone who has access than someone who doesn't. We read the news and see TSOs and ramp workers stealing stuff, bringing guns to work (Alvin Crabtree's still working at DEN, right?), drug running and so forth. You can't honestly sit there and tell us with a straight face that with stuff like this happening that screening those people would be "too hard" or "cost too much." TSA seems to always come up with the money for stuff when it's for show for the passengers, but doesn't have real substance.

With all the illegals that are constantly found working airport ramps and such, do you honestly think ignoring screening these people is a good thing? With TSA frequently flaunting "not on my watch" and invoking 9/11, will you be able to rest easily if a ramp worker places a bomb on a plane because they weren't screened?

Running security checks and checking them against lists doesn't do squat. Spies convicted of espinonage were able to pass TS/SCI background checks and polygraphs. How confident are you that your background check and list are sufficient to keep someone bad from doing something? If good spies can beat those investigations and polygraphs, how hard do you think it would be for Al Qaida, some other terrorist organization, or even a nut job acting alone to infiltrate that area? Trivial at best.

Put those thousands standing around and money to real work and really protect us. Quit giving us the kabuki theater at the front door when the backdoor is protected with a simple, jimmyable padlock.

Hubris is not a good thing in security. For good security, the WHOLE picture has to be looked at with resources prioritized based on risk and likelihood of an attack. TSA's current model is focusing in the wrong area. That's not saying security isn't needed for pax - it is. However, focusing on where the public can see and ignoring the gaping holes in security behind the scenes is doing a great disservice to everyone and only provides an illusion of security.

"Irish sez - 'So, let me see if I've got this straight. Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular?'

Nice try there Irish, ... I have a question for you Irish, do you want ALL people that enter the SIDA areas screened? This would mean that even the LEO's designated to patrol in the AOA and SIDA areas would have to take their gun belt and all their equipment off and process it through the xray. Would you make exceptions for an emergency situation? If so the medical crews responding to a situation would have to stop and process all of their equipment through before they are able to get to someone in need. It would also mean that maintenance workers going to fix a gas leak or some other broken item would have to clear their tools (and if held to the same standards, would always have to use tools under 7 inches in length to perform the repair/maintenance) before going through to fix whatever was needing repair. The owners/board members of the airport would have to clear before going out to review or inspect or even look around their own airport. Aircraft repair crew would not be able to work on a delayed aircraft before coming through... Do you see how senseless that sounds? It is exactly what you are proposing by the way you are phrasing things. There are people that have access to the AOA, SIDA areas, and other secured areas of the airport that do not process through screening, but have to go through access control measures before gaining entry. If you want them all screened, it would be a huge task and cost bazillions of dollars to outfit the new screening areas."

"Nice try there Irish, but like I explained to RB earlier, these are controlled access areas. There are those that enter these areas without being screened (flight crews, etc see my previous post). If you want all people that access the AOA, SIDA areas and other areas, it would be monumental because not only would the people have to be on the access rosters for the airport, new control points and screening areas would have to be constructed for the areas they enter at."

You can't have it all ways, West. TSA justifies subjecting air passengers to all sorts of indignities and invasions of privacy in the name of "security". Even presuming TSA is thereby successfully reducing risk (a presumption I do not make, but for the sake of argument), there still remain unacknowledged gaping holes in this much-vaunted and highly dubious accomplishment. To date, TSA's success in securing anything else can only be rated as something less than spectacular. "Controlled access" is well less than well controlled.

Don't get me wrong, West - there are valuable reasons for not screening every individual. In fact, I would make many more exceptions than TSA makes. But that was not the question. Here, I'll repeat the question:

"Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular?"

Irish sez - ""Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular?"

And once again, GSOLTSO responded "No, that is not what I said at all, and it is not another point of proof that we are not in control. Each of the areas that I am referring to has a access control and is a secured area. The difference is that people that are on the cleared rosters (flight crew, certain airport employees, maintenance crews, baggage handlers, etc) and have access to those areas are not screened 100% of the time. TSOs are not screened 100% of the time at the checkpoint or these access areas. They are not wide open, they are controlled access areas"

"Irish sez - 'Are you saying that TSA is leaving great gaping holes in security because remediating them would be inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular?'

And once again, GSOLTSO responded 'No, that is not what I said at all, and it is not another point of proof that we are not in control. Each of the areas that I am referring to has a access control and is a secured area. The difference is that people that are on the cleared rosters (flight crew, certain airport employees, maintenance crews, baggage handlers, etc) and have access to those areas are not screened 100% of the time. TSOs are not screened 100% of the time at the checkpoint or these access areas. They are not wide open, they are controlled access areas'

Asked and answered."

I didn't say they were wide open, West. I said there are great, gaping holes. As long as a bad guy can get something out, a bad guy can put something in. Unscreened staff can get stuff in even easier. Drugs, guns, sinister shampoo, you name it. That's a given. Perhaps you forgot your original assertion in response to that given: "The organization made the decision to not screen the TSO's going to work, I abide by that. If we are going to screen everyone, we would have to limit access to the baggage areas, the checkpoints, the airside areas and any access point to the SIDA/sterile areas. At some airports, it would take years to adjust that and set it up for screening. Now, imagine the backlash from the LEOs, the pilots and crew, the airline fuel teams, and the list goes on. I agree that we could screen all people coming into the sterile area, but it would be a huge undertaking to change the way things work as of now."

"Background checks" <> security. "Access control" <> security. Each is only one step in the security process, each with its own weaknesses. Weaknesses = holes.

You said: "At some airports, it would take years to adjust that and set it up for screening", and I said: "inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming" You said "Now, imagine the backlash from the LEOs, the pilots and crew, the airline fuel teams, and the list goes on:, and I said "unpopular".

You've provided your arguments about how the existing system accomplishes partial security. You haven't addressed the question about why partial security is good enough. (Hint: there's a valid answer. "Inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming and unpopular" just isn't it.)

"Ask inappropriate questions of passengers (such as TSO asking the guy in St. Louis where he was employed,.."

That is often a very appropriate question. It can be used to help clear an alarm. For example, we have a great deal of mining going on in our state. It wouldn't be unusual for a passenger in that field to have items that alarmed for explosives.